Perfected body?

[Guest Ivo_G]

Ok, so I'm a recent convert to the LDS church and as such I guess I'm supposed to know more about other churches or at least about the Orthodox church since I was a member (at least nominally) until not very long ago - however it turns out I don't I got into a discussion on another forum and it was mentioned that the LDS believe that we are going to receive perfected bodies when we are resurected - I always assumed that's pretty much what all Christian churches believed...however I was told that at least the Catholics, the Orthodox and some other denominations don't believe that? Is that true and if so - what do you guys believe then, concerning our resurection?

[Jezebel2011]

We believe that we existed as spirits before we came to this earth. As spirits, we lived with our Heavenly Father. When we were born, our spiritual bodies joined with our physical bodies.

On this earth we grow and gain valuable experiences, solidifying relationships and learning to follow God's commandments.

When we die our spirits and our bodies once again separate, but not permanently. Because Christ suffered on the cross, died, and was resurrected on the third day, He overcame death for all of us. All of us will be resurrected, meaning that our bodies and our spirits will once again be united.

Our resurrected bodies will be perfect, no longer feeling pain, sickness or death. Christ gave this gift to all of us, no matter how we lived our lives on earth. However, if we live righteously and follow all of God's commandments, He will give us an even greater gift. If we live righteously we can live with Him and our families forever. The relationships that we formed on earth will continue after this life. I am so grateful to know that as long as I follow God's commandments, I can be with my family forever.

[Dravin]

Jezebel, while we, LDS, are Christian, his question was directed to mainstream Christian understanding. At least how I'm reading it.

Edited February 15, 2012 by Dravin

[rameumptom]

As I understand it, most traditional Christians do believe in a physical resurrection into a perfected body. That said, for them a perfected body would be somewhat different than the LDS view of resurrection. Since traditionals believe in ex nihilo creation (creation from nothing), and that God is made of other substance that is totally pure, which is completely different than anything else, we could never become exactly as he is. So there is a difference, albeit, they are not sure just how the difference pans out in the long run. For LDS, we believe that we are made of the same stuff God is made of, and so can become exactly like him through Christ.

[Jezebel2011]

We need someone not LDS to address this post!!

I wasn't mainstream Christian before becoming LDS. In fact I wasn't even Christian at all!

[Jezebel2011]

A Synopsis by Victor Zammit

Is there life after death? What form does it take?

Various Christian denominations and leaders have taught conflicting answers to those two questions:

We eventually land up in Heaven, Hell, Limbo, Purgatory, Sheol, or some other place, state, or condition.

We simply disappear and cease to exist in any form.

Our souls separate immediately from our body and go to Heaven or Hell while our bodies remain on Earth to decay.

We sleep for a long time after death before waking up for a final judgment.

We are reincarnated into new bodies to live another lifetime on Earth, either as a human or animal.

We go through a number of steps after death before we end up in our final destination.

Infants who die go to Limbo, where they remain in an infant state forever.

[Shelly200]

Hi Ivo! I'm a Catholic who converted from the Southern Baptist church. You're right that most Christian churches believe in gaining a perfected body after this life. The Catholics are included in that list too (as well as the Orthodox).

In the Nicene Creed we recite "I look forward to the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come." The Catechism states that this resurrection of the dead - a work of the Holy Trinity - is when the soul and the body are reunited. At death the soul and body are separated. The soul goes to meet God and await the reunion with its glorified body. "God, in his almighty power, will definitiviely grant incorruptible life to our bodies by reuniting them with our souls, through the power of Jesus' Resurrection." (CCC 997)

So, the short answer is: Catholics also believe in receiving a glorified, incorruptible, perfected body at the end of the world.

[Guest]

As I understand it, most traditional Christians do believe in a physical resurrection into a perfected body. That said, for them a perfected body would be somewhat different than the LDS view of resurrection. Since traditionals believe in ex nihilo creation (creation from nothing), and that God is made of other substance that is totally pure, which is completely different than anything else, we could never become exactly as he is. So there is a difference, albeit, they are not sure just how the difference pans out in the long run. For LDS, we believe that we are made of the same stuff God is made of, and so can become exactly like him through Christ.

You are correct in your statement here - that ex nihilo gives a slightly different meaning to the resurrection than the LDS.

But, it's not THAT different. The perfected body is the same (at least in Catholic understanding) as the LDS perfected body. Remember, in Catholicism, mortal body was a component of one of the persons in the Trinity - Jesus Christ. Therefore, our perfected body will be just like Jesus' perfected body in that specific person of the Trinity after it was resurrected.

So yes, in Trinitarian concept, we are not of the same substance as God. But we are the same substance as what made Jesus Christ mortal - who is also God. Make sense?

Okay, so the only difference therefore, is that we believe that God the Father and God the Holy Ghost, together with God the Son all have the same body - not different - from all of us - and they're all 3 separate bodies. That's it.

Note: I was Catholic before LDS.

Edited July 18, 2012 by anatess

[Dravin]

So yes, in Trinitarian concept, we are not of the same substance as God. But we are the same substance as what made Jesus Christ mortal - who is also God. Make sense?

Somewhat like this? If you can forgive a metallurgical comparison:

God: Copper

Mortal Christ: Bronze

Humans: Tin

(I'm focusing on the alloy aspect not any properties the respective metals may have)

Edited July 18, 2012 by Dravin

[Guest]

Somewhat like this? If you can forgive a metallurgical comparison:

God: Copper

Mortal Christ: Bronze

Humans: Tin

(I'm focusing on the alloy aspect not any properties the respective metals may have)

Uhm no.

It's more like this:

God: Copper

Jesus Christ as a person in the Trinity: Copper who assumed the properties of Tin.

Humans: Tin

[Dravin]

Uhm no.

It's more like this:

God: Copper

Jesus Christ as a person in the Trinity: Copper who assumed the properties of Tin.

Humans: Tin

If you have a metal that has the properties of tin you don't have copper, which is why I was focusing on the alloy aspect not the properties aspect. That's okay though, apparently there is an aspect to my analogy you don't feel quite fits.

Edited July 18, 2012 by Dravin

[Shelly200]

Yes, the fact that Trinitarians view God and Man as different beings affects the way they think about the resurrection.

When an LDS person thinks of "becoming like God" they have a much more literal idea of what that means: because God the Father has a body, as does God the Son, and humans are of the same make-up. So they can indeed be like God in body.

When a Catholic thinks of "becoming like God" they think of having intelligence and an eternal soul (every living thing has a soul, but only humans have a soul that lives beyond this Earthly life). So when we think of the resurrection, we don't think of becoming like God at all, really... at least I don't. I think of becoming... like me, but perfected. All that I can be, and more. In Heaven, we will all have perfected bodies, but we will all still be completely, totally, absolutely outshown by God.

...if that made any sense at all... or was relevant. Sorry.

And anatess explained much better the analogy of copper/bronze/tin. Since Christ IS God, then He is not a different substance altogether than either of the other Persons of the Trinity. So if God is copper, then Christ is copper too, at His core (not His literal core, of course). Christ is God who took on humanity; He was always God (a different substance than Man), who deigned to humble Himself and ALSO take on Man (a different substance than God)... but, being all-powerful, He didn't get rid of His God-ness, but instead was fully God and fully Man at the same time. So He would still be copper. But copper with the properties of tin. And Man would be tin.

Therefore, since we are tin, when we die and later gain resurrected bodies... well, we'll still be tin. We won't change from tin to copper, because only God is copper. We'll just be a new kind of tin, but still tin all the same.

[AnthonyB]

I would express my Christian (non-LDS) view as....

God the Father is gold (As is God the Holy Spirit)

Jesus before His incarnation was gold

Jesus during His incarnation was both fully gold and fully clay (He took on clay whilst remaining fully gold, there is no mixing of the two natures, so using an alloy would be wrong)

Jesus after his ressurection was completed is both fully gold and fully silver.

We are currently clay

After the resurrection we will be silver.

Edited July 19, 2012 by AnthonyB

[Vort]

Jesus during His incarnation was both fully copper and fully clay (He took on clay whilst remaining fully copper)

Jesus after his ressurection was completed is both fully copper and fully tin.

Can you explain what it means to be "fully copper and fully clay (or tin)"? That seems false by the very definition of words.

[AnthonyB]

Vort,

The simple response is no I can't explain it. If you think the "trinity" is complex then the "hypostatic union" is even more so.

Jesus is both fully God and fully man but he is not a mix of the two but fully both at the same at time. To quote from Wikipedia..."there are two natures; each retaining its own properties, and together united in one subsistence and in one single person (εἰς ἓν πρόσωπον καὶ μίαν ὑπόστασιν, eis hèn prósōpon kaì mían hypóstasin)."

The LDS idea is far simpler but for better or worse we (traditional Christians) have to stick to what we belive the NT teaches about Jesus. That God and man are different species. Also that Jesus was God and he was man, if you make him a hybrid then he really isn't either but something else again.

Edited July 19, 2012 by AnthonyB

[Guest]

Can you explain what it means to be "fully copper and fully clay (or tin)"? That seems false by the very definition of words.

Vort, okay, remember, I'm LDS so it is a little tricky for me to go back and explain Trinitarian concept without tainting it with my LDS knowledge. But here goes:

God is God. He can do anything. One of the things he can do is create something out of nothing. He is Gold - pure Spirit. He decides to create Clay. The property of Clay is both body and spirit together - remember, there's no such thing as premortal life - but Clay spirit is not of the same substance as Gold Spirit... it is Clay spirit. Now, God loves man so much that he wants man to transcend the mortal limitations of his Clayness so he can be like God in eternity. So, God sent a part of himself (a person in Jesus) to become Clay to atone for man's clayness and show him the way to eternal life. Now, the property of this Clay is both body and spirit. Jesus has clay body - man created by God - but has Gold Spirit - as he is God. Now, you might think - so that means he is only partial man because he doesn't have the Clay spirit. Not so. Because Jesus' Gold Spirit is bound by his clayness (subject to temptation, etc.). So, he is still fully man - afflicted by clayness.

Okay, that just sounds so wierd with this Gold and Clay talk. But, being Vort, I'm sure you can wade through the wierdness and get the gist of what I'm trying to say.

[Vort]

Vort, okay, remember, I'm LDS so it is a little tricky for me to go back and explain Trinitarian concept without tainting it with my LDS knowledge. But here goes:

God is God. He can do anything. One of the things he can do is create something out of nothing. He is Gold - pure Spirit. He decides to create Clay. The property of Clay is both body and spirit together - remember, there's no such thing as premortal life - but Clay spirit is not of the same substance as Gold Spirit... it is Clay spirit. Now, God loves man so much that he wants man to transcend the mortal limitations of his Clayness so he can be like God in eternity. So, God sent a part of himself (a person in Jesus) to become Clay to atone for man's clayness and show him the way to eternal life. Now, the property of this Clay is both body and spirit. Jesus has clay body - man created by God - but has Gold Spirit - as he is God. Now, you might think - so that means he is only partial man because he doesn't have the Clay spirit. Not so. Because Jesus' Gold Spirit is bound by his clayness (subject to temptation, etc.). So, he is still fully man - afflicted by clayness.

Okay, that just sounds so wierd with this Gold and Clay talk. But, being Vort, I'm sure you can wade through the wierdness and get the gist of what I'm trying to say.

The gist of the argument, as I understand it, is: "We can't understand it." Which I don't object to, by the way. I think it's not a useful answer, but if we do not have the concepts or vocabulary to describe something, then we can't describe it, and that's that.

My objection is to the blatant misuse of words -- not using words in a different way or context or to mean something different from their normal usage, but using words in a way that is explicitly self-contradictory. I tend to get impatient with such usage.

Example 1: God can save people in their sinful state. Nonsense. Of course he cannot. It's a contradiction in terms. "Salvation" and "sinful" are not compatible. By the plain meaning of words, it is impossible for God to save people in their sins.

Which leads to:

Example 2: God can do anything. This is the classical nonsense word game. What does "anything" mean? Can God make a rock so big he cannot lift it? Can God be sinful? Can God cause himself to cease to exist? Can God make it so that we not only do not exist now, but never did exist? Can God cause us to exist and not exist at the same point simultaneously? All have the same answer: Of course God "cannot" do such things, because such things have no meaning, just like in Example 1.

This is what it sounds like to me when someone claims, "God is 100% gold and 100% clay, and he's not a mixture or a compound of the two, but simultaneously and purely both, but not together, but in their pure state." It's just a mass of words strung together according to the rules of grammar, but the words don't have any actual meaning. Like "salvation in sin".

My point is not to criticize, but to understand. Is the belief there merely to let believers say something about God Incarnate, regardless of how inaccurate and false it is? Or are we somehow expected to divine a deeper meaning out of meaninglessness, like pondering a Buddhist koan? Or do these statement actually have meaning that I'm somehow missing?

[Guest]

The gist of the argument, as I understand it, is: "We can't understand it." Which I don't object to, by the way. I think it's not a useful answer, but if we do not have the concepts or vocabulary to describe something, then we can't describe it, and that's that.

My objection is to the blatant misuse of words -- not using words in a different way or context or to mean something different from their normal usage, but using words in a way that is explicitly self-contradictory. I tend to get impatient with such usage.

Example 1: God can save people in their sinful state. Nonsense. Of course he cannot. It's a contradiction in terms. "Salvation" and "sinful" are not compatible. By the plain meaning of words, it is impossible for God to save people in their sins.

Which leads to:

Example 2: God can do anything. This is the classical nonsense word game. What does "anything" mean? Can God make a rock so big he cannot lift it? Can God be sinful? Can God cause himself to cease to exist? Can God make it so that we not only do not exist now, but never did exist? Can God cause us to exist and not exist at the same point simultaneously? All have the same answer: Of course God "cannot" do such things, because such things have no meaning, just like in Example 1.

This is what it sounds like to me when someone claims, "God is 100% gold and 100% clay, and he's not a mixture or a compound of the two, but simultaneously and purely both, but not together, but in their pure state." It's just a mass of words strung together according to the rules of grammar, but the words don't have any actual meaning. Like "salvation in sin".

My point is not to criticize, but to understand. Is the belief there merely to let believers say something about God Incarnate, regardless of how inaccurate and false it is? Or are we somehow expected to divine a deeper meaning out of meaninglessness, like pondering a Buddhist koan? Or do these statement actually have meaning that I'm somehow missing?

It is a misconception that "we cannot understand it". Of course we can understand it. Of course we can describe it. That's what the Bible is doing - describing God so we can understand. Yes, I'm talking about "the great mystery of the Trinity". The mystery is not that we don't understand what are the qualities of God - or man for that matter. The mystery is that we don't actually know exactly what substance God is - what ousia. Because, there's nothing like it on earth that we can touch, smell, see, whatever. So, we call it a mystery. But, there's no mystery to what properties that God has... omnipotence, omnipresence, love, and all that jazz.

Fully God and fully man is not a mystery either. I just explained it in the above post. The mystery - again - is what exactly that substance is that is God. So, Jesus being fully man - we get that. Jesus being fully God - it's a mystery because we don't exactly know what ousia God is. So, the Spirit of God in the body of man is a mystery because of that God component - God's ousia is not the same as man's ousia - so what substance of Jesus is different from the substance of man is a mystery. But the qualities of Jesus that is God is completely not a mystery. It's all over the Bible and the traditions of the Catholic Church.

God can do anything. That's not hard to understand either. He wants to make a rock so big he can. He can't lift it? No such thing. He can do anything including lift a very big rock. Can he sin? Sure. Can he make himself cease to exist? Why not? But, will God choose to do so? Meh. No.

It is actually easier to understand the Godhead if you come from the background of the Trinity. Because... tat-tada... they're the exact same except that the ousia that is the mystery is the Godhead. So, for you, having already understood the Godhead can easily understand the Trinity - just take out the Godhead part, take out the physical body of God and the Holy Ghost. Then replace the Godhead with some unknown physical substance that unites all 3. Really. That's IT.

[AnthonyB]

Vort,

Maybe I chose my words poorly however I never said I cannot understand it but that in simple terms I cannot explain it.

I can give an explanations but I have to use highly speculative language and it is an attempt to descibe the concept not to describe how I think it does actually work. (But hey this is an LDS forum and you guys tend to like speculative ideas)

Let us presume that string theory is correct and that there is actually 11 dimensions that exist but only 4 are used in our space-time universe. This leaves the other 7 dimensions to be used in heaven. (Again I am not saying this is so, it is illustrative example but I do think it quaint that the numbers of dimensions appear to line up with biblical numbers, 4 for the earth and 7 for heaven)

So God the Father and Jesus exists in the seven dimensional space (without saying they are embodied, just that is where they exist however they exist) At the incarnation Jesus becomes embodied in our 4 dimensional time space but he also at the same time retains whatever essence/existence he had in 7 dimensional space. So he simultaneously and fully can be both the same essence as God the Father in the higher 7 dimensions but also the same esence as us in 4 dimensional time-space.He gained a 4 dimensional time-space body that is fully human without giving up whatever essence he had before that. However by taking on the human body he limits himself because they two natures are one person and cannot be split.

Edited July 19, 2012 by AnthonyB

[AnthonyB]

Vort,

Example 1: God can save people in their sinful state. Nonsense. Of course he cannot. It's a contradiction in terms. "Salvation" and "sinful" are not compatible. By the plain meaning of words, it is impossible for God to save people in their sins

Actually I agree with what you say above but it is a matter of lanuguage and usage.

Salvation in traditional thinking includes several concepts.

Justification - Is the initial and legal removal of the negative penalty of sin and an impartation of a positive standing before God.

Santification - Is the on going change of our nature to holiness, that God works through our circumstances in life.

Glorification - Is the change when we die, to get us ready to be in the presence of God.

Now unfortunately many Christians use "salvation" or "saved" as short hand for justification because it marks the initial change of state. Clearly we are justified in our sins when we come to faith in Christ. (And I personally take faith to mean more then just mental ascent but a faithful response to discipleship in Jesus.)

Clearly we can't be sanctified in our sins, since it is the removal of sinful habits.

Nor can we be glorified in our sins because sin cannot abide the presence of God.

I presume you'd agree that we can be justified in our sins and that is what most Christians mean when they say they are saved in their sinful state.

[Vort]

Maybe I chose my words poorly however I never said I cannot understand it but that in simple terms I cannot explain it.

Thank you for your clear explanations. Please note that I never intended criticism toward you or anyone else specifically. Any criticisms I might have given were non-specific.